ne
of the most striking features of George W. Bush’s presidency has been
his proclivity to use soaring, idealistic rhetoric that is totally at
odds with reality, a tendency that was on display again in his address
to the United Nations General Assembly.

Bush framed his Sept. 19 speech in the context of
the U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “The words of the
Universal Declaration are as true today as they were when they were
written,” Bush declared.

But it’s hard to believe that Bush had the faintest
idea what principles he was embracing – or perhaps he has grown so
self-confident in never being challenged on his hypocrisies that he
believes he can say anything he wants, no matter how false or deceptive.

Among the 30 rights proclaimed in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights are these:

--“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person.”

--“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

--“Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere
as a person before the law.”

--“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest,
detention or exile.”

--“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair
and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge
against him.”

-- “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the
right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a
public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his
defense.”

--“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to
attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

--“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

--“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted
as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any
activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the
rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

Though Bush is arguably in violation of many if not
all the above-cited human rights tenets, he unblushingly cites the
Universal Declaration as the foundation for his international policies,
from the invasion of Iraq to his handling of the “war on terror.”

Even as Bush criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for
stopping his planned kangaroo courts for terror suspects and as he
battles members of Congress over his desire for harsh interrogation of
detainees, he invokes principles that bar exactly what he seeks to do.

How does subjecting detainees to simulated drowning
by “waterboarding” not violate the prohibition on torture? How does
stripping suspects naked and soaking them with cold water in frigid
rooms not go against the ban on “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment?”

How does imprisoning an estimated 14,000 people
without trial or even charges – and arranging “extraordinary renditions”
of others to countries that torture – fit with the U.N. principle
barring “arbitrary arrest, detention or exile?”

What about the U.N. mandate that a suspect must get
a public trial before an independent tribunal and receive “all the
guarantees necessary for his defense?” Instead, Bush wants U.S.-run
military tribunals to convict and even execute defendants based on
secret evidence that can be withheld from both the public and the
defendants.

Bush also insists that his “plenary” – or unlimited
– powers as Commander in Chief allow him to tap telephones and spy on
Americans and non-Americans without obtaining any form of court warrant.
Yet, the Universal Declaration objects to “arbitrary interference with
[a person’s] privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

Bush’s hostility toward dissent – even declaring
some thinking “unacceptable,” as he did at a press conference on Sept.
15 – and the eagerness of his supporters to smear anyone who opposes the
President also don’t match with the principle that human rights include
the “freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information.”

So, why would Bush invoke the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights when he is flouting many of its core principles?

There would seem to be two possible explanations
for Bush’s chutzpah: either he’s just reading a script without
regard to the words or he’s confident that he can speak the opposite of
the truth knowing that few people of consequence will call him on it.

Either way, Bush’s cavalier attitude in hailing
human rights while simultaneously trashing human rights represents
another classic case of Bush’s hubris, which is becoming the
defining characteristic of his presidency.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from
Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at
secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at
Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine,
the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Consortiumnews.com
is a product of The Consortium for Independent Journalism, Inc., a non-profit organization
that relies on donations from its readers to produce these stories and keep alive this Web
publication. To contribute,click here.To contact CIJ, click here